November 1999 - sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: H.323 mobility:Reserve TDs
by Edgar Martinez [1] 11 Nov '99

11 Nov '99

Hi Radhika, I suggested it, if it is OK by everyone I prefer MTD.xxx it will also help to keep track of the Mobility TD's without having to open the other regular TD's to look for the subject. Regards, Ed "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote: > Hi, Ed and Paul: > > Did we not agree that we will provide "MTD.xxx" instead of "TD.xxx" to > differentiate from the regular "TD.xxx"? > > Thanks, > Radhika > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze@CIG.MOT.COM] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 10:37 PM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: H.323 mobility:Reserve TDs > > > > Paul, > > > > I will like to reserve the following TDs. TD 03, 04 and 05. > > For the h.332 mobility Ad-hoc meeting. > > > > TD-03 will be H.323 Annex-H Darft and outline. > > > > TD-04 will be the Level 1 headings for H.323 Annex-H > > interworking with legcay mobile networks and mobile > > terminals (from the IP network perspective). > > > > TD-05 (Informational only) Full migration from GPRS > > to a Multimedia IP network (from the H.323 IP network > > perspective). > > > > Thank you, > > -- > > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/ -- Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0

H.450.3 interrogation procedure
by Henri M�enp�� 11 Nov '99

11 Nov '99

All, I have a question concerning H.450.3 Call Diversion supplementary service, and more specifically about the interrogation procedure. The response to an interrogation of current activations consists of a list of IntResult IEs. Each of these describe one diversion activation "description". Among the information fields is this boolean value remoteEnabled. What is the purpose of this? -Henri Mäenpää

1 0

H.245 address and tunneling
by El-Gebaly, Hani 11 Nov '99

11 Nov '99

Greetings all, I have a question regarding tunneling and H.245 address. Suppose a terminal returned a connect message with a valid H.245 address (IP+port) together with tunneling set to TRUE. What should be the behavior of the receiving terminal in this case? It can be either: 1. The terminal establishes a separate H.245 TCP connection and starts H.245 procedure. 2. The terminal ignores the H.245 address and assumes that tunneling is requested and will be honored later on in the call. The real question is under what circumstances or why would a terminal request tunneling and supply an H.245 address? Is it backward compatibility? Thanks in advance for all your responses. Hani

2 1

Final version of the Red Bank meeting report APC-1748
by Sakae OKUBO 10 Nov '99

10 Nov '99

Dear Q12-14/16 experts, I have placed the Red Bank meeting report with confirmed status at the PictureTel ftp site: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/9910_Red/APC-1748b.zip or http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/9910_Red/APC-1748b.zip The following elaboration has been made from the previous version APC-1748a for your confirmation: 1) At the end of Section 5.4.1.2 "Related to Transport of QSIG & ISUP in H.323 systems", a sentence has been added in response to Mr. Potter's comment. 2) In Section 6.2.1.9 "APC-1666 - Megaco/H.248 Packages", the packages agreed for the white contribution have been explicitly listed. 3) The list of participants has been finalized. This version has been sent to Mr. Tosco, Chairman of WP2/16, and Mr. Bigi, ITU-TSB. Best regards, Sakae OKUBO (Mr.) *********************************************************** Waseda Research Center Telecommunications Advancement Organization of Japan (TAO) 5th Floor, Nishi-Waseda Bldg. 1-21-1 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan Tel: +81 3 5286 3830 Fax: +81 3 5287 7287 e-mail: okubo(a)giti.or.jp ***********************************************************

1 0

H.323 mobility:Reserve TDs
by Edgar Martinez [1] 10 Nov '99

10 Nov '99

Paul, I will like to reserve the following TDs. TD 03, 04 and 05. For the h.332 mobility Ad-hoc meeting. TD-03 will be H.323 Annex-H Darft and outline. TD-04 will be the Level 1 headings for H.323 Annex-H interworking with legcay mobile networks and mobile terminals (from the IP network perspective). TD-05 (Informational only) Full migration from GPRS to a Multimedia IP network (from the H.323 IP network perspective). Thank you, -- Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0

Re: LogicalChannelRate Messages
by El-Gebaly, Hani 10 Nov '99

10 Nov '99

Aseem, Paul and all, LogicalChanelRate SDL should be very similar to any request/response pair like Paul mentioned. This was an Intel contribution for controlling video/data channel bitrate. I will consider bringing a clarification contribution to version 6 maybe and the implementers guide in an upcoming Rapporteur meeting. Yes releaseComplete should have a cookie to address the active SDL. I didn't want to deviate from the legacy :). I will address this issue as well. Thanks for the reminder. regards, Hani -----Original Message----- From: Paul Long [mailto:plong@SMITHMICRO.COM] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 10:57 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: LogicalChannelRate Messages Aseem, Good point. Looks like an oversight. Using the other signaling entities, or SEs, as a guide, it appears that when there is a single SE per call, as is the case with CESE, no other information is required; however, when there can be multiple SEs per call, as is the case with CLCSE, RMSE, _and our "LCRSE"_, one must identify which instance of the incoming SE in the remote EP is being released. As a practical matter, I would say that upon receipt of LogicalChannelRateRelease as it is currently defined in H.245v5, an EP should release _all_ incoming SEs. At the earliest opportunity, we should add a logical-channel-number extension addition to this message, i.e., LogicalChannelRateRelease ::=SEQUENCE { ..., logicalChannelNumber LogicalChannelNumber } BTW, If we had gone to the trouble of defining an SE for these messages, I bet this oversight would have been caught in time. Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Aseem Agarwal [mailto:aseem@trillium.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 12:40 PM To: plong(a)SMITHMICRO.COM Cc: h323implementors(a)imtc.org Subject: Re: LogicalChannelRate Messages hi Paul A related question. There are no "sequence number and logical channel number" information elements in LogicalChannelRateRelease message. How will a receiving entity correctly associate this message to the request message received earlier in case multiple such requests are pending ? regards, aseem

3 3

Re: LogicalChannelRate Messages
by Paul Long 10 Nov '99

10 Nov '99

Aseem, Good point. Looks like an oversight. Using the other signaling entities, or SEs, as a guide, it appears that when there is a single SE per call, as is the case with CESE, no other information is required; however, when there can be multiple SEs per call, as is the case with CLCSE, RMSE, _and our "LCRSE"_, one must identify which instance of the incoming SE in the remote EP is being released. As a practical matter, I would say that upon receipt of LogicalChannelRateRelease as it is currently defined in H.245v5, an EP should release _all_ incoming SEs. At the earliest opportunity, we should add a logical-channel-number extension addition to this message, i.e., LogicalChannelRateRelease ::=SEQUENCE { ..., logicalChannelNumber LogicalChannelNumber } BTW, If we had gone to the trouble of defining an SE for these messages, I bet this oversight would have been caught in time. Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Aseem Agarwal [mailto:aseem@trillium.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 12:40 PM To: plong(a)SMITHMICRO.COM Cc: h323implementors(a)imtc.org Subject: Re: LogicalChannelRate Messages hi Paul A related question. There are no "sequence number and logical channel number" information elements in LogicalChannelRateRelease message. How will a receiving entity correctly associate this message to the request message received earlier in case multiple such requests are pending ? regards, aseem

1 0

Re: H323 Mobility: About the work plan
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 10 Nov '99

10 Nov '99

Hi, Jaakko and All: Please see my reply provided below. I believe that we are in full agreement. Best regards, Radhika > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 9:54 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: H323Mobility: About the work plan > > Hi Radhika & others, > > Radhika has sent several messages indicating that he would like to see > complete mobility solutions from Nokia as well as others. We do not think > that this is a good way to define the Annex H at this point. Furthermore, > we > think that this kind of approach is in conflict with what was agreed as > the > work plan in the Red Bank meeting. In our opinion we all agreed that the > next step is to finish the functional requirements and define the > functional > architecture including the reference points and descriptions of the > functional entities. [Roy, Radhika R] I guess that we are talking about the same thing. We are definitely defining the functional requirements as agreed in the Red Bank meeting. When people do not understand a functional requirement from conceptual point of view, the logical step is to see whether that functional requirement is supported by a solution. That does not mean that we should not include a function as "a place holder" to move forward because our final goal is to find a solution. You are welcomed to bring your proposals anytime. > If we all were to present our complete solutions (which I really doubt > that > all interested parties would be prepared to do), it would lead to several > very long contributions, say one from each of the following: AT&T, > Motorola, > Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens and Intel. Each of these contributions would > probably be in excess to 50 pages and very probably there would be great > differences between them. In order for us to be discussing the matter > based > on these contributions would require that everyone has fully analyzed each > of the contributions in such a way that possible weaknesses and/or clear > errors are found. This would require such an enormous workload that in > practice it would not be done and we would end up arguing about the matter > with quite limited knowledge of each other's ideas and in the end we would > probably produce some kind of lame compromise full of errors that have to > be > corrected afterwards. [Roy, Radhika R] Our final goal is to create standards to provide a solution. Companies are taking pains to bring contributions to provide a complete solution. We have no choice other than going through each proposal with due respect. We have to find pros and cons for each contribution. Then, we have to make a consensus decision based on technical merits. > Now, this does not mean that we shouldn't present example cases > (procedures) > based on the proposed architectural models, etc. Our view is that this > kind > of examples are both illustrative and necessary for understanding how the > system might work. However, we think that we do not need detailed message > definitions or even all the message sequences at this phase, the general > information flows are quite enough for examining the behavior of the > proposed architectures. In fact, we think that the next logical step in > the > Annex H standardization process would be the definition of the information > flows (i.e. what kind of information must be sent) between the functional > entities. After this kind of analysis has been made, it is much easier to > make the message and message field definitions (e.g. ASN.1) as well as the > message sequences in a way that is acceptable by at least the most of us. [Roy, Radhika R] Definitely, I agree with you. That is why we are providing comments on your proposal. You are always welcomed to put forward your proposals anytime you like unless you are not satisfied with all other alternative proposals. If you think that more architectural examples are needed to understand your points, please do so. Again, our final goal is to create standards to find a solution. > Nokia will present an architecture proposition in the near future, > hopefully > by the beginning of next week. [Roy, Radhika R] Beautiful. In this way, we will be able to get more insights for the problems for which all of us is looking for a solution. > - Jaakko Sundquist > ------------------------------------------------------- > In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. > Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of > worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, > sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: > it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. > -------------------------------------------------------

1 0

H323Mobility: About the work plan
by Jaakko Sundquist 10 Nov '99

10 Nov '99

Hi Radhika & others, Radhika has sent several messages indicating that he would like to see complete mobility solutions from Nokia as well as others. We do not think that this is a good way to define the Annex H at this point. Furthermore, we think that this kind of approach is in conflict with what was agreed as the work plan in the Red Bank meeting. In our opinion we all agreed that the next step is to finish the functional requirements and define the functional architecture including the reference points and descriptions of the functional entities. If we all were to present our complete solutions (which I really doubt that all interested parties would be prepared to do), it would lead to several very long contributions, say one from each of the following: AT&T, Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens and Intel. Each of these contributions would probably be in excess to 50 pages and very probably there would be great differences between them. In order for us to be discussing the matter based on these contributions would require that everyone has fully analyzed each of the contributions in such a way that possible weaknesses and/or clear errors are found. This would require such an enormous workload that in practice it would not be done and we would end up arguing about the matter with quite limited knowledge of each other's ideas and in the end we would probably produce some kind of lame compromise full of errors that have to be corrected afterwards. Now, this does not mean that we shouldn't present example cases (procedures) based on the proposed architectural models, etc. Our view is that this kind of examples are both illustrative and necessary for understanding how the system might work. However, we think that we do not need detailed message definitions or even all the message sequences at this phase, the general information flows are quite enough for examining the behavior of the proposed architectures. In fact, we think that the next logical step in the Annex H standardization process would be the definition of the information flows (i.e. what kind of information must be sent) between the functional entities. After this kind of analysis has been made, it is much easier to make the message and message field definitions (e.g. ASN.1) as well as the message sequences in a way that is acceptable by at least the most of us. Nokia will present an architecture proposition in the near future, hopefully by the beginning of next week. - Jaakko Sundquist ------------------------------------------------------- In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. -------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 10 Nov '99

10 Nov '99

Hi, Adam and All: We have requested everyone to provide contributions with solutions. We will then be able to understand what exactly they mean. With respect to your questions, it is too early to answer. However, we will be getting there soon as we are making progress to find a solution. Once we define an H.323 mobility architecture, we will definitely be able to relate all other wireless networks as well. Please note that H.323 mobility architecture is good for both wire-line and wireless network. By the way, if your provide a contribution, it will help us to understand about your proposed solution. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Li [SMTP:adamli@ICSL.UCLA.EDU] > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 4:41 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion > > Hi, all, > > Barry Aronson's comment seems to make a lot of sense to me. > > I am new to the H.323 group, but I've been reading the email > correspondences here for quite a while. May I ask a few dumb > questions, and please correct me and elighten me if I am wrong? > > Question: Consider the wireless case, isn't that H.323M is > going to be used over some wireless network (e.g. 3G IMT2000 > network)? If such network is already built to ensure that your > data gets transmitted to you no matter you walk or drive from > one zone to the other, why can't our H.323M terminal just > sit at the handset and wait for our data get routed to us > by the network? Or, why do we need to duplicate these > functions that are already provided, and should be provided > by the network layer? > > Maybe, all we have to do is to make sure we know the data is from > the same entity when it changes its attaching point, since each > H.323 entity is identified by the LAN address (H.323 7.1.1). > A simple extension of assigning a temporary ID number to each > entity or to each conference can solve that. > > Please enlighten if there is any special compelling reason that > I might have overlooked for duplicating an entire mobile network > functionality within H.323. Thanks in advance. > > Adam Li > > > Edgar Martinez [1] writes: > > > > Comments: follow-- > > > > Barry Aronson wrote: > > > > > All, > > > > > > I agree with Tom. We seem to be headed for designing an entire mobile > > > network within H.323 -- definitely a case of the tail wagging the dog. > If > > > this was the desire, extending existing mobile networks (AMPS, GSM, > etc.) to > > > include H.323 terminals would be simpler. > > > > This is called the WAP solution, already done but it is still > > two separate networks (MSC-CS and PDN) routed/ split out > > by a DSU from the BSC. And it does not address the fixed > > Internet PC or any PSTN/ISDN interworking. > > > > > That is, of course, unless you > > > wanted the terminals to be independent of the physical network from > the > > > network layer on up. H.323 could do this if there was an underlying > packet > > > based network -- probably IP. Using IP as a common network layer for > both > > > wireless and wired terminals is of course all the rage these days. > Given > > > that universal wireless terminals are been worked as part of IMT-2000 > (and > > > 3GPP, 3GPP-2, etc.), wouldn't it make sense to define the Annex H > issues > > > being debated in the appropriate network groups? > > > > We are looking at the H.323 mobility at the appilation layer within > > the approriate woking groups. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought in Santiago the purpose of Annex > H and > > > I was to make H.323 work within the context of a mobile terminal > and/or > > > user, and also allow for service mobility. > > > > I feel a mobile IP debate is in the starts here but, We are looking at > > the H.323 mobility at the appilation layer within the approriate woking > > group. > > > > What the IETF needs to address is how mobile IP interworks with Mobility > > whether is H.323, GSM, PLNM or otherwise.. > > > > > I don't think any of what is > > > being discussed for Annex H is necessary to achieve this. > > > > What being discussed here is, we are looking at > > the H.323 mobility from the appilation layer. > > > > > > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 > > > [mailto:ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM]On Behalf Of Tom-PT Taylor > > > Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 11:17 AM > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > > Subject: Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion > > > > > > I think a basic point in this discussion is that mobility is "bigger > than" > > > H.323 and already has well-established architectural underpinnings. > It's > > > all very well to talk about an H.323 solution which we could then > adapt, but > > > we would more likely end up with an H.323-only solution as a result. > The > > > concern then would be whether vendors saw sufficient opportunity in > building > > > to this market, compared with the general market for mobility > products. > > > > -- > > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/ > > > > > -- > Adam H. Li > Image Process Lab > University of California - Los Angeles > (Phone) 310-825-5178 (Fax) 310-825-7928

1 0